NATO weapons found in Donestk region!

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
It's not worth arguing thou....when people read your sources and claim they support their argument when they in fact don't then they are beyond my ability to rationally discuss with.

When the President at the time states about protecting American citizens in the mentioned invasions as one of the reasons, then it becomes part if the whole reason whether you agree or not.

Its a fact they mentioned it, which you're dismissing to suit your argument rather than accept your earlier errored challenge.

Back on topic Russia wouldn't even need to use the protecting Russian citizens line (which is aimed for the home audience rather than the global one). They could just go in on humanitarian reasons, been done before.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

America doesn't run around like Russia does saying we are going to invade to protect native Russians

What?, im pretty sure that was the exact reason used when the United States invaded Nicaragua

Anyway these books can better explain more concisely than I ever could on how wrong you are, or you could just watch some classic FOX re-runs I suppose. WMD's spring to mind.

Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media

War without Mercy

originally posted by: Dabrazzo
a reply to: noeltrotsky

America doesn't run around like Russia does saying we are going to invade to protect native Russians

What?, im pretty sure that was the exact reason used when the United States invaded Nicaragua

The intervention in Nicaragua wasn't based on the 'protect americans' story. It was based on the protect american interests story, namely american assets. The overwhelming american desire was to ensure no canal was built unless it was done so by US interests.

Keep looking for an invasion the US has done based on protecting americans. You're confusing the protection of 'interests' and the protection of 'people'. America does the former, Russia the latter.

a reply to: Dabrazzo

Their is a difference in sending forces in to protect and evacuate Americans on foreign soil and invading a sovereign nation, occupying and annexing it under the guise of protecting ethnic Russians.

The problem with the ethnic Russian excuse is Russia has not provided the UN with any evidence to support that claim. The UN has made many requests for Russia to provide the information they used to justify there action in Ukraine and to date Russia has failed to supply any evidence.